I felt kind of meh about the previous thread, so I'm forking it.
geni wrote:
2)Large number of semi automated deletion notices. This is going to happen whatever you do unless you ban all uploads from people who aren't qualified intellectual property lawyers. Eh just look at your average en.wikipedia talk page for a semi active editor.
An alternate solution would be to ban automated notices. :-) Or at least make them far less obnoxious. Saying "if you look over here, you'll see the same or worse" is a pretty poor argument, in my opinion.
3)Lack of positive feedback. I'm not sure there is any way around this. Automated notices that image you uploaded is being used on project Y would get annoying for some users. I guess having it as a well advertised feature that people could turn on would be an option.
It's a great option if we want most users to not use the feature. User defaults are _hugely_ important. Most users (probably over 90%) have few uploads, so consequently looking at the default from this perspective alone, it makes sense to enable media usage notifications by default (at least in-site notices, maybe not e-mail notices). We could even (smartly) disable media usage notifications at a particular upload threshold (e.g., if you have greater than 1,000 uploads, you probably don't want the notices). There are a few edge cases here, such as an image being added to a template, but these are likely solvable.
Use by third parties is even harder to track. Short of googling your nic+ "CC-BY-SA" and the like. Even that only turns up a limited subset of users mind.
Eh, if they're hotlinking from Commons, we presumably have HTTP referers in the server access logs. Otherwise, there are services (Google Images, TinEye, etc.) that can perform reverse image searches. These aren't trivial technical problems, but they're also not insurmountable. Now, whether investing in such a "thanks for your upload, look where it's being used!" service is worth the cost, given the benefit, is a separate question, as always.
For Commons, my personal view is that I'd like to see its search functionality suck a lot less. Commons search needs:
* search by tag (which we have already with categories, but we're apparently supposed to wait until the magical future of Wikidata);
* search by color; and
* search by file size and type.
As much as the term is an awful buzzword, Commons could also do with additional gamification, from what I've seen. If we can set up an easy keyword/tagging system, having users help us sort and tag media would be amazing. Building up and tearing down a queue is still not trivial. :-(
Commons also needs at least four in-browser editors (for rasterized images, vector graphics, audio files, and videos) and additional supported file upload types (e.g., .ico would be great to have). And much more. Currently we have a database of free media, but I think it'd be really cool if we made it dramatically easier to find, re-use, and re-mix this media. And, for better or worse, we know we cannot hope that the Wikimedia Foundation alone will fix these problems.
4)third parties choosing other projects. Thing is for large dumps of poorly curated content with messy copyright issues things like the internet archive are probably a better match.
This is a nasty cop-out. We already do this in a limited fashion, but we need to get better about soliciting and accepting donations to Commons. There's definitely a shared interest in preserving and promoting all kinds of media that we're not doing very well to capture and utilize. There are at least two broad categories I see that could make donations: GLAMs and individuals who have an article that currently has no image or a bad image.
5)Some commons admins are behaving problematically. Yes but I'm not sure what to do about that.
Eh, I think Commons certainly has its share of bad admins, but I'm not sure it's the admins who are the problem. As you say, broader clarification about what is and isn't acceptable at Commons would probably be helpful to have.
It's likely better to spend time and energy focused on the tasks discussed in this e-mail or elsewhere across Wikimedia. I think doing so will actually move Commons forward. Not that it's bad to occasionally vent frustrations, but we can do better (in more ways than one!).
MZMcBride
MZMcBride wrote:
geni wrote:
2)Large number of semi automated deletion notices. This is going to happen whatever you do unless you ban all uploads from people who aren't qualified intellectual property lawyers. Eh just look at your average en.wikipedia talk page for a semi active editor.
An alternate solution would be to ban automated notices. :-) Or at least make them far less obnoxious. Saying "if you look over here, you'll see the same or worse" is a pretty poor argument, in my opinion.
Aye. I am a not malicious user, but I had over a handful of automated notices at Commons. To keep my user talk page readable, I had to redact them (replace each such notice with one line of plain text with links to relevant documentation).
Would we consider (truly) semi-automating the process? :-)
Let's use talk page canned responses. That's what this set of unofficial JS-free tools is doing for reviewing draft submissions at English Wikipedia, including communication at the draft talk page and the author talk page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gryllida/draft/under-review
For instance, the text field with canned responses may look like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%20talk:Foo&action=edit%...
Notice that it's characteristic of this message: a) it doesn't look like a banner. It looks like a normal message. b) it has free space for the reviewer to leave a personal comment to the user, which means a more human approach.
There are some overheads. 1) It would be much easier to use as a banner shown only to reviewers during page edit. I don't know how to do that. 2) It would be much easier to use if preloadparams=[] thing from URL reflected on not only page content, but also on page edit banner. It does not, which introduces an overhead with the username parameter.
Hope that helps. (I don't have the past context of this conversation to have confidence in that I'm bringing up a relevant point.)
MZMcBride wrote:
For Commons, my personal view is that I'd like to see its search
functionality suck a lot less.
+1
MZMcBride wrote:
As much as the term is an awful buzzword, Commons could also do with additional gamification, from what I've seen. If we can set up an easy keyword/tagging system, having users help us sort and tag media would be amazing.
We already have such system. It's called categories. If we would like to build a prettier interface for it, I'm all ears (although I wouldn't call it a game).
-- svetlana
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 5:33 AM, svetlana svetlana@fastmail.com.au wrote:
MZMcBride wrote:
As much as the term is an awful buzzword, Commons could also do with additional gamification, from what I've seen. If we can set up an easy keyword/tagging system, having users help us sort and tag media would be amazing.
We already have such system. It's called categories. If we would like to build a prettier interface for it, I'm all ears (although I wouldn't call it a game).
Gamification here relates to one type of interface, where a user gets supplied a random example of an issue, and then tries to resolve that, with a single resolution being just a small task. For an example of what that looks like in a Wikimedia- context, see the Wikidata game at https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/. A game could for example be used to re-categorize files in categories that are too general (like [[Category:People]]), to categorize uncategorized images or to add a certain type of category to files where for some reason it seems likely to apply (for example, images that in some way are described as paintings which have no author-category).
There are lots of "unidentified (blah blah)" categories - such as birds, cars, flowers, and etc etc. How about these categories?
-Yena Hong (Revi) [[User:-revi]] -- Sent from Android -- 2014. 12. 13. 오후 5:08에 "Andre Engels" andreengels@gmail.com님이 작성:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 5:33 AM, svetlana svetlana@fastmail.com.au wrote:
MZMcBride wrote:
As much as the term is an awful buzzword, Commons could also do with additional gamification, from what I've seen. If we can set up an easy keyword/tagging system, having users help us sort and tag media would be amazing.
We already have such system. It's called categories. If we would like to
build a prettier interface for it, I'm all ears (although I wouldn't call it a game).
Gamification here relates to one type of interface, where a user gets supplied a random example of an issue, and then tries to resolve that, with a single resolution being just a small task. For an example of what that looks like in a Wikimedia- context, see the Wikidata game at https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/. A game could for example be used to re-categorize files in categories that are too general (like [[Category:People]]), to categorize uncategorized images or to add a certain type of category to files where for some reason it seems likely to apply (for example, images that in some way are described as paintings which have no author-category).
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
No, tagging is different. GerardM blogged about this with the example of "horse". You can "tag" a photo as being of a horse by putting it in the horse category, but in no time it will be filed under some subcategory of horse. There are relatively few images in the top "horse" category. Moreover, most pictures of horses are not even in the horse category tree, but are categorized under some GLAM donation category and have never been sorted into any other category. The concept of categorizing is also based on existing categories, and the process of creating categories, though not difficult, is not easily available to newbies. Tagging allows the user complete freedom in associating concepts with images. Ideas around tagging on Commons have been rejected as putting an extra burden on anti-vandal fighters, in addition to being possibly useless in the goal of "making search on Commons suck less"
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 5:33 AM, svetlana svetlana@fastmail.com.au wrote:
MZMcBride wrote:
As much as the term is an awful buzzword, Commons could also do with additional gamification, from what I've seen. If we can set up an easy keyword/tagging system, having users help us sort and tag media would be amazing.
We already have such system. It's called categories. If we would like to
build a prettier interface for it, I'm all ears (although I wouldn't call it a game).
Gamification here relates to one type of interface, where a user gets supplied a random example of an issue, and then tries to resolve that, with a single resolution being just a small task. For an example of what that looks like in a Wikimedia- context, see the Wikidata game at https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/. A game could for example be used to re-categorize files in categories that are too general (like [[Category:People]]), to categorize uncategorized images or to add a certain type of category to files where for some reason it seems likely to apply (for example, images that in some way are described as paintings which have no author-category).
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Jane Darnell wrote:
No, tagging is different. GerardM blogged about this with the example of "horse". You can "tag" a photo as being of a horse by putting it in the horse category, but in no time it will be filed under some subcategory of horse. There are relatively few images in the top "horse" category.
This is one of the most baffling parts of Commons to me. Why is it a problem to have images of horses in Category:Horse? You seem to be describing a social problem ("it will be filed under some subcategory [by a person]"), not a technical problem. If people are vandalizing files by removing useful categories, we should tell them to stop immediately.
Moreover, most pictures of horses are not even in the horse category tree, but are categorized under some GLAM donation category and have never been sorted into any other category.
This doesn't make any sense to me either. There's no real limit to the number of categories that a file can have. Why not have both Category:Horse and Category:Donated_by_some_institution? What's the technical issue here?
The concept of categorizing is also based on existing categories, and the process of creating categories, though not difficult, is not easily available to newbies.
It's already fairly simple to add a category to a page (the category description page doesn't need to exist for a category to have members), but we need to make it simpler and more fun, as I said.
Tagging allows the user complete freedom in associating concepts with images. Ideas around tagging on Commons have been rejected as putting an extra burden on anti-vandal fighters, in addition to being possibly useless in the goal of "making search on Commons suck less"
Useless? Tagging is a major part of search. I have no idea what you're talking about here. My understanding is that GerardM believes that we'll put tags into Wikidata instead of on Commons. I don't think any reasonable person seriously questions the utility or virtue of tagging. I think many reasonable look at the current classification system on Commons and genuinely do find it completely useless and incredibly frustrating.
MZMcBride
I cannot see the point of raising questions about how Commons works here rather than on Commons.
All of these points have been raised before and discussed on the village pump.
Other threads on this list were argued to be about multiple projects, this is not.
Fae On 13 Dec 2014 16:06, "MZMcBride" z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Jane Darnell wrote:
No, tagging is different. GerardM blogged about this with the example of "horse". You can "tag" a photo as being of a horse by putting it in the horse category, but in no time it will be filed under some subcategory of horse. There are relatively few images in the top "horse" category.
This is one of the most baffling parts of Commons to me. Why is it a problem to have images of horses in Category:Horse? You seem to be describing a social problem ("it will be filed under some subcategory [by a person]"), not a technical problem. If people are vandalizing files by removing useful categories, we should tell them to stop immediately.
Moreover, most pictures of horses are not even in the horse category tree, but are categorized under some GLAM donation category and have never been sorted into any other category.
This doesn't make any sense to me either. There's no real limit to the number of categories that a file can have. Why not have both Category:Horse and Category:Donated_by_some_institution? What's the technical issue here?
The concept of categorizing is also based on existing categories, and the process of creating categories, though not difficult, is not easily available to newbies.
It's already fairly simple to add a category to a page (the category description page doesn't need to exist for a category to have members), but we need to make it simpler and more fun, as I said.
Tagging allows the user complete freedom in associating concepts with images. Ideas around tagging on Commons have been rejected as putting an extra burden on anti-vandal fighters, in addition to being possibly useless in the goal of "making search on Commons suck less"
Useless? Tagging is a major part of search. I have no idea what you're talking about here. My understanding is that GerardM believes that we'll put tags into Wikidata instead of on Commons. I don't think any reasonable person seriously questions the utility or virtue of tagging. I think many reasonable look at the current classification system on Commons and genuinely do find it completely useless and incredibly frustrating.
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Perhaps because on Commons village pump, non-regulars, interacting politely and civilly, are harassed, abused and also blocked without cause.
Perhaps because the discussion system at Commons is broken, and participation there is oftentimes a complete waste of time.
BRUENTRUP
On 12/13/14, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
I cannot see the point of raising questions about how Commons works here rather than on Commons.
All of these points have been raised before and discussed on the village pump.
Other threads on this list were argued to be about multiple projects, this is not.
Fae On 13 Dec 2014 16:06, "MZMcBride" z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Jane Darnell wrote:
No, tagging is different. GerardM blogged about this with the example of "horse". You can "tag" a photo as being of a horse by putting it in the horse category, but in no time it will be filed under some subcategory of horse. There are relatively few images in the top "horse" category.
This is one of the most baffling parts of Commons to me. Why is it a problem to have images of horses in Category:Horse? You seem to be describing a social problem ("it will be filed under some subcategory [by a person]"), not a technical problem. If people are vandalizing files by removing useful categories, we should tell them to stop immediately.
On 13 Dec 2014 16:41, "Bruentrup" claus.bruentrup@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps because on Commons village pump, non-regulars, interacting politely and civilly, are harassed, abused and also blocked without cause.
Perhaps because the discussion system at Commons is broken, and participation there is oftentimes a complete waste of time.
BRUENTRUP
What you describe is nothing like the friendly project I have supported almost every week for the past four years.
Fae
You are a "regular". I was describing unfriendly behavior of the administrators, clerks of Commons, towards non-regulars / outsiders, who are directed to Commons by WMF staff to get their images removed, only to be abused and/or blocked.
When these affected persons thereafter use the OTRS using email to get their copy-vio images removed, these emails are not acknowledged and not acted upon. When reminders are sent to OTRS these are ignored. So hardly a friendly place, or even an efficient one. It seems there is no system at Commons to give an OTRS ticket number or expected time to resolution, after an email informally reporting infringement is received..
It is also unrealistic for WMF to suggest affected outsider persons resolve their Commons IPR issues with volunteers on public notice boards.
It is also strange for WMF's community advocates to publicly suggest that WMF's legal department does not have the capacity to be the first point of contact for every image takedown request. Believe you me that nobody wants to burden legal@WMF for the Common community's unfriendliness by sending DMCA or similar notices.
WMF must implement a professional ticketed system for media takedowns, and DMCAs must be the exception rather than the norm.
BRUENTRUP
On 12/13/14, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 Dec 2014 16:41, "Bruentrup" claus.bruentrup@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps because on Commons village pump, non-regulars, interacting politely and civilly, are harassed, abused and also blocked without cause.
Perhaps because the discussion system at Commons is broken, and participation there is oftentimes a complete waste of time.
BRUENTRUP
What you describe is nothing like the friendly project I have supported almost every week for the past four years.
Fae
Hi,
On 13 December 2014 at 19:46, Bruentrup claus.bruentrup@gmail.com wrote:
WMF must implement a professional ticketed system for media takedowns, and DMCAs must be the exception rather than the norm.
hmm, do you have evidence of this? There are often delays when it comes to acknowledging the receipt of permission statements (due to the high amount of such emails), but frankly I have never heard of copyright infringement notices not being processed. From my impression this is one area where we are particularly swift to react, and respecting third-party copyrights is one of the cornerstones of the project (incidentally, the original thread here was started precisely because, supposedly, Commons users take copyright law too seriously). That doesn't mean there might not be an outlier occasionally, but almost all of these copyright-related complaints that I see are dealt with within a few days at the most. (That doesn't, and shouldn't, mean that everything is acted on just because someone claims their rights were violated without providing any proof of that claim. In this case it might be necessary to resort to the DMCA's notice process since it's the only way to at least expose the claimant to some danger should his assertion prove untrue.)
Also, the extremely low number of DMCA take-down requests (see < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Transparency_Report/DMC...) seems to contradict your claim that they are the "norm." It would be highly implausible that you can run a platform like the Wikimedia projects at 58 DMCA requests in two years (apparently less than 10/year related to Commons) unless you have a pretty efficient mechanism apart from that in place to address such issues.
Patrik
Hi
One of those 6 successful DMCA's of 2014 was filed by us. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/DMCA_India_Against_Corruption_logo
Yet recently when my client, in good faith, reports further infringement of their same logo at Commons village pump, we have a Commons administrator agitating the community against my client. This administrator is self declared on-wiki, on his user page, as an employee of an NGO whose CEO is an infringer of my client's works and has regularly impersonated my client. This administrator is also the Commons OTRS administrator.
Not surprisingly my client's OTRS emails have gone unacknowledged with no action taken, and my client's spokesperson was repeatedly insulted and abused on-line at the highly toxic Commons which has become a haven for pirates and infringers.
The WMF must urgently install a professional take down system at Commons which is autonomous, ticketed, and with DMCAs as an appellate mechanism. Till then the WMF must also immediately cease advising affected non-users to resolve their infringements with their "communities".
BRUENTRUP
On 12/14/14, pajz pajzmail@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On 13 December 2014 at 19:46, Bruentrup claus.bruentrup@gmail.com wrote:
WMF must implement a professional ticketed system for media takedowns, and DMCAs must be the exception rather than the norm.
hmm, do you have evidence of this? There are often delays when it comes to acknowledging the receipt of permission statements (due to the high amount of such emails), but frankly I have never heard of copyright infringement notices not being processed. From my impression this is one area where we are particularly swift to react, and respecting third-party copyrights is one of the cornerstones of the project (incidentally, the original thread here was started precisely because, supposedly, Commons users take copyright law too seriously). That doesn't mean there might not be an outlier occasionally, but almost all of these copyright-related complaints that I see are dealt with within a few days at the most. (That doesn't, and shouldn't, mean that everything is acted on just because someone claims their rights were violated without providing any proof of that claim. In this case it might be necessary to resort to the DMCA's notice process since it's the only way to at least expose the claimant to some danger should his assertion prove untrue.)
Also, the extremely low number of DMCA take-down requests (see < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Transparency_Report/DMC...) seems to contradict your claim that they are the "norm." It would be highly implausible that you can run a platform like the Wikimedia projects at 58 DMCA requests in two years (apparently less than 10/year related to Commons) unless you have a pretty efficient mechanism apart from that in place to address such issues.
Patrik _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 14 December 2014 at 05:49, Bruentrup claus.bruentrup@gmail.com wrote:
Not surprisingly my client's OTRS emails have gone unacknowledged with no action taken, and my client's spokesperson was repeatedly insulted and abused on-line at the highly toxic Commons which has become a haven for pirates and infringers.
Just ran a search on India Against Corruption on the copyright queue. Nothing. Can only assume any emails were sent to the wrong place
Please recheck your queue
The first email was sent on 28. November 2014 subject "Complaint about images on Wikimedia Commons". A reminder was sent on Dec 2, 2014
Both these emails were sent by <name redacted> the "National Media Coordinator, India Against Corruption, jan andolan" to "info-commons@wikimedia.org".
On 4 December they further escalated OTRS inaction and silence to Lila Tretikov "lila@wikimedia.org". Yet again no reply or action or even a rejection, which would cause my client to file a DMCA.
In other previous DMCAs of 2014, eg. the Herzog estate, we can also observe such long delays for WMF to reply to affected persons who initially approach directly, and the great reluctance at WMF to "circumvent the community processes" without DMCA motions.
BRUENTRUP
On 12/14/14, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 December 2014 at 05:49, Bruentrup claus.bruentrup@gmail.com wrote:
Not surprisingly my client's OTRS emails have gone unacknowledged with no action taken, and my client's spokesperson was repeatedly insulted and abused on-line at the highly toxic Commons which has become a haven for pirates and infringers.
Just ran a search on India Against Corruption on the copyright queue. Nothing. Can only assume any emails were sent to the wrong place
-- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 2014-12-14 06:49, Bruentrup wrote:
Hi
One of those 6 successful DMCA's of 2014 was filed by us. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/DMCA_India_Against_Corruption_logo
I would suggest to the list moderators that every poster identified as IAC would be blocked on sight, due to the high level of disruption coming from this sockfarm on this mailing list (and also on the projects such as the English Wikipedia).
Cheers Yaroslav
And that will magically make all the infringements of IAC's IP at Commons somehow acceptable and usable ?
If you have reliable hard evidence of disruption and "socking" by / against IAC, carried out from India, please share it with us so that my clients can report it to the law enforcement agencies, as they regularly do, to identify and prosecute the culprits.
BRUENTRUP
On 12/14/14, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On 2014-12-14 06:49, Bruentrup wrote:
Hi
One of those 6 successful DMCA's of 2014 was filed by us. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/DMCA_India_Against_Corruption_logo
I would suggest to the list moderators that every poster identified as IAC would be blocked on sight, due to the high level of disruption coming from this sockfarm on this mailing list (and also on the projects such as the English Wikipedia).
Cheers Yaroslav
On 2014-12-14 14:05, Bruentrup wrote:
And that will magically make all the infringements of IAC's IP at Commons somehow acceptable and usable ?
If you have reliable hard evidence of disruption and "socking" by / against IAC, carried out from India, please share it with us so that my clients can report it to the law enforcement agencies, as they regularly do, to identify and prosecute the culprits.
Please report yourself to the law enforcement agency first for spooling this mailing list last week and adding people to a google group without their consent (and for acting so using the name of a different list contributor).
In the English Wikipedia, I personally blocked from editing several accounts from your sockfarm.
I do not see why I should be wasting more time for IAC.
Thank you for your attention.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
I do not see why I should be wasting more time for IAC.
Then please don't; there's enough nastiness in this thread as it is.
Thanks,
Austin
And you assert that I personally did all those things ?
And you do not acknowledge then IAC is an actual public movement / organisation, with tens of thousands of subscribers all connected by internet and with similar ideologies, all upset with Wikipedia. eg. like Eastern European mailing list, Church of Scientology etc.
Unlike them, my client is only concerned with a single article "India Against Corruption" from which the chief author, "Sitush", backed out during the agreed mediation and could not defend his malicious edits, leading to this surge of indignation being expressed against Wikipedia and off it.
We await a reply from OTRS or Ms.Tretikov's office to our client's emails reporting the IP infringements.
BRUENTRUP
On 12/14/14, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On 2014-12-14 14:05, Bruentrup wrote:
And that will magically make all the infringements of IAC's IP at Commons somehow acceptable and usable ?
If you have reliable hard evidence of disruption and "socking" by / against IAC, carried out from India, please share it with us so that my clients can report it to the law enforcement agencies, as they regularly do, to identify and prosecute the culprits.
Please report yourself to the law enforcement agency first for spooling this mailing list last week and adding people to a google group without their consent (and for acting so using the name of a different list contributor).
In the English Wikipedia, I personally blocked from editing several accounts from your sockfarm.
I do not see why I should be wasting more time for IAC.
Thank you for your attention.
Cheers Yaroslav
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I assert that you're absolutely disrupting this mailing list. I have banned this address, and will ban any others that surface from you or your tens of thousands of bot—sorry, "members," intent on disrupting the list to pursue whatever agenda it is you're trying to shove in everyone's faces.
Austin
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Bruentrup claus.bruentrup@gmail.com wrote:
And you assert that I personally did all those things ?
And you do not acknowledge then IAC is an actual public movement / organisation, with tens of thousands of subscribers all connected by internet and with similar ideologies, all upset with Wikipedia. eg. like Eastern European mailing list, Church of Scientology etc.
Unlike them, my client is only concerned with a single article "India Against Corruption" from which the chief author, "Sitush", backed out during the agreed mediation and could not defend his malicious edits, leading to this surge of indignation being expressed against Wikipedia and off it.
We await a reply from OTRS or Ms.Tretikov's office to our client's emails reporting the IP infringements.
BRUENTRUP
On 12/14/14, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On 2014-12-14 14:05, Bruentrup wrote:
And that will magically make all the infringements of IAC's IP at Commons somehow acceptable and usable ?
If you have reliable hard evidence of disruption and "socking" by / against IAC, carried out from India, please share it with us so that my clients can report it to the law enforcement agencies, as they regularly do, to identify and prosecute the culprits.
Please report yourself to the law enforcement agency first for spooling this mailing list last week and adding people to a google group without their consent (and for acting so using the name of a different list contributor).
In the English Wikipedia, I personally blocked from editing several accounts from your sockfarm.
I do not see why I should be wasting more time for IAC.
Thank you for your attention.
Cheers Yaroslav
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hahaha.
Taking the Church of Scientology has an example shows your true face...
Yann
2014-12-14 14:30 GMT+01:00 Bruentrup claus.bruentrup@gmail.com:
And you assert that I personally did all those things ?
And you do not acknowledge then IAC is an actual public movement / organisation, with tens of thousands of subscribers all connected by internet and with similar ideologies, all upset with Wikipedia. eg. like Eastern European mailing list, Church of Scientology etc.
Unlike them, my client is only concerned with a single article "India Against Corruption" from which the chief author, "Sitush", backed out during the agreed mediation and could not defend his malicious edits, leading to this surge of indignation being expressed against Wikipedia and off it.
We await a reply from OTRS or Ms.Tretikov's office to our client's emails reporting the IP infringements.
BRUENTRUP
On 12/14/14, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
On 2014-12-14 14:05, Bruentrup wrote:
And that will magically make all the infringements of IAC's IP at Commons somehow acceptable and usable ?
If you have reliable hard evidence of disruption and "socking" by / against IAC, carried out from India, please share it with us so that my clients can report it to the law enforcement agencies, as they regularly do, to identify and prosecute the culprits.
Please report yourself to the law enforcement agency first for spooling this mailing list last week and adding people to a google group without their consent (and for acting so using the name of a different list contributor).
In the English Wikipedia, I personally blocked from editing several accounts from your sockfarm.
I do not see why I should be wasting more time for IAC.
Thank you for your attention.
Cheers Yaroslav
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
You need to precise that you created a whole farm of sockpuppets, which are all blocked on the English Wikipedia and Commons. For what I know, these socks mostly are pursuing a political agenda about a power game.
Yann
2014-12-14 6:49 GMT+01:00 Bruentrup claus.bruentrup@gmail.com:
Hi
One of those 6 successful DMCA's of 2014 was filed by us. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/DMCA_India_Against_Corruption_logo
Yet recently when my client, in good faith, reports further infringement of their same logo at Commons village pump, we have a Commons administrator agitating the community against my client. This administrator is self declared on-wiki, on his user page, as an employee of an NGO whose CEO is an infringer of my client's works and has regularly impersonated my client. This administrator is also the Commons OTRS administrator.
Not surprisingly my client's OTRS emails have gone unacknowledged with no action taken, and my client's spokesperson was repeatedly insulted and abused on-line at the highly toxic Commons which has become a haven for pirates and infringers.
The WMF must urgently install a professional take down system at Commons which is autonomous, ticketed, and with DMCAs as an appellate mechanism. Till then the WMF must also immediately cease advising affected non-users to resolve their infringements with their "communities".
BRUENTRUP
On 12/14/14, pajz pajzmail@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On 13 December 2014 at 19:46, Bruentrup claus.bruentrup@gmail.com wrote:
WMF must implement a professional ticketed system for media takedowns, and DMCAs must be the exception rather than the norm.
hmm, do you have evidence of this? There are often delays when it comes to acknowledging the receipt of permission statements (due to the high amount of such emails), but frankly I have never heard of copyright infringement notices not being processed. From my impression this is one area where we are particularly swift to react, and respecting third-party copyrights is one of the cornerstones of the project (incidentally, the original thread here was started precisely because, supposedly, Commons users take copyright law too seriously). That doesn't mean there might not be an outlier occasionally, but almost all of these copyright-related complaints that I see are dealt with within a few days at the most. (That doesn't, and shouldn't, mean that everything is acted on just because someone claims their rights were violated without providing any proof of that claim. In this case it might be necessary to resort to the DMCA's notice process since it's the only way to at least expose the claimant to some danger should his assertion prove untrue.)
Also, the extremely low number of DMCA take-down requests (see < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Transparency_Report/DMC...) seems to contradict your claim that they are the "norm." It would be highly implausible that you can run a platform like the Wikimedia projects at 58 DMCA requests in two years (apparently less than 10/year related to Commons) unless you have a pretty efficient mechanism apart from that in place to address such issues.
Patrik _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
That's true of most project-specific discussions, but in this case, I don't think the answer to "Commons isn't open to policy discussions" is "Go start a policy discussion on Commons."
As long as Commons is meant to be a repository for the whole movement, I think it is fairly topical here.
Austin
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
I cannot see the point of raising questions about how Commons works here rather than on Commons.
All of these points have been raised before and discussed on the village pump.
Other threads on this list were argued to be about multiple projects, this is not.
Fae On 13 Dec 2014 16:06, "MZMcBride" z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Jane Darnell wrote:
No, tagging is different. GerardM blogged about this with the example of "horse". You can "tag" a photo as being of a horse by putting it in the horse category, but in no time it will be filed under some subcategory of horse. There are relatively few images in the top "horse" category.
This is one of the most baffling parts of Commons to me. Why is it a problem to have images of horses in Category:Horse? You seem to be describing a social problem ("it will be filed under some subcategory [by a person]"), not a technical problem. If people are vandalizing files by removing useful categories, we should tell them to stop immediately.
Moreover, most pictures of horses are not even in the horse category tree, but are categorized under some GLAM donation category and have never been sorted into any other category.
This doesn't make any sense to me either. There's no real limit to the number of categories that a file can have. Why not have both Category:Horse and Category:Donated_by_some_institution? What's the technical issue here?
The concept of categorizing is also based on existing categories, and the process of creating categories, though not difficult, is not easily available to newbies.
It's already fairly simple to add a category to a page (the category description page doesn't need to exist for a category to have members), but we need to make it simpler and more fun, as I said.
Tagging allows the user complete freedom in associating concepts with images. Ideas around tagging on Commons have been rejected as putting an extra burden on anti-vandal fighters, in addition to being possibly useless in the goal of "making search on Commons suck less"
Useless? Tagging is a major part of search. I have no idea what you're talking about here. My understanding is that GerardM believes that we'll put tags into Wikidata instead of on Commons. I don't think any reasonable person seriously questions the utility or virtue of tagging. I think many reasonable look at the current classification system on Commons and genuinely do find it completely useless and incredibly frustrating.
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 13 December 2014 at 16:43, Austin Hair adhair@gmail.com wrote:
As long as Commons is meant to be a repository for the whole movement, I think it is fairly topical here.
Other threads on this list were argued to be about multiple projects, this is not.
Pretty much the entire reason these threads exist and keep happening is that Commons is actively being a huge problem for multiple other projects.
- d.
On 13 December 2014 at 16:06, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Jane Darnell wrote:
No, tagging is different. GerardM blogged about this with the example of "horse". You can "tag" a photo as being of a horse by putting it in the horse category, but in no time it will be filed under some subcategory of horse. There are relatively few images in the top "horse" category.
This is one of the most baffling parts of Commons to me. Why is it a problem to have images of horses in Category:Horse? You seem to be describing a social problem ("it will be filed under some subcategory [by a person]"), not a technical problem. If people are vandalizing files by removing useful categories, we should tell them to stop immediately.
Pretty much. We use minute sub-sub-sub-categories because Boolean arithmetic on categories used to be unfeasible; now it's feasible, but we don't do it because that's not the convention. So it would require convincing the Commons community that moving to categories as tags is a good idea.
- d.
2014-12-13 18:37 GMT+01:00 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
Pretty much. We use minute sub-sub-sub-categories because Boolean arithmetic on categories used to be unfeasible; now it's feasible, but we don't do it because that's not the convention. So it would require convincing the Commons community that moving to categories as tags is a good idea.
But the categories and tags are two different ways of creating of organizing items. Tagging is flat, categories are hierarchical by defintion. Using categories as a kind of tags makes all the mess... As categories do make sense for encyclopedic articles - for pictures and other media it does not work well... For example - if I want to make a picture of Polish actress searchable - the most natural method is to add tags: "actors", "Polish" an "woman". But in Commons I have to add it to category named "Actresses from Poland". The upload wizzard is not very helpful - as if I start inserting to the category field "Polish" (which seems to be most natural thing) it won't show me categories "Actors from..." Moreover this category is not very helpful for readers and reuses - as they have no option to get list of pictures of all Polish actors as long as they don't know this "from" convention and speak English...
Probably somewhere on Commons there was long discussion of moving "Polish actors" category to "Actors from Poland" (and for all other professions and nationalities) and starting it again might be treated as a kind of trolling, but I really don't know where and when it happened and I really don't care. I just want to know how to properly mark pictures to make them searchable as uploader, and how to find them as reader/reuser. And at the moment Commons from both this POVs is quite obviously dysfunctional. The issue is to let uploaders easy mark pictures to make them to be able to be easily found... Really...
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
On 13 December 2014 at 02:48, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I felt kind of meh about the previous thread, so I'm forking it.
geni wrote:
2)Large number of semi automated deletion notices. This is going to happen whatever you do unless you ban all uploads from people who aren't qualified intellectual property lawyers. Eh just look at your average en.wikipedia talk page for a semi active editor.
An alternate solution would be to ban automated notices. :-)
Individualised ones don't scale
Or at least make them far less obnoxious.
Been tried. A lot. It doesn't make any difference mind but I assume people will continue trying.
Saying "if you look over here, you'll see the same or worse" is a pretty poor argument, in my opinion.
Going after commons for a project wide issue however pretty pointless.
Use by third parties is even harder to track. Short of googling your nic+ "CC-BY-SA" and the like. Even that only turns up a limited subset of users mind.
Eh, if they're hotlinking from Commons, we presumably have HTTP referers in the server access logs. Otherwise, there are services (Google Images, TinEye, etc.) that can perform reverse image searches.
They tend to object to people trying to run too many automated searches on their services.
For Commons, my personal view is that I'd like to see its search functionality suck a lot less.
Being worked on
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CirrusSearch
Commons search needs:
- search by tag (which we have already with categories, but we're apparently supposed to wait until the magical future of Wikidata);
Been on the wishlist for years.
search by color; and
search by file size and type.
Doable but I don't think it the CirrusSearch people are working on anything like that.
Commons also needs at least four in-browser editors (for rasterized images, vector graphics, audio files, and videos)
In browser editing is kinda dicey.
and additional supported file upload types (e.g., .ico would be great to have).
computer icons in Microsoft Windows?
I'd put 3D file formats higher up the list. Not that either will every actually happen.
This is a nasty cop-out.
Not really. Recognising our limits has its uses and if we can turn the chapters into respected points of contact which GLAMs know will point them in useful direction we at least get to know what is going on.
We already do this in a limited fashion, but we need to get better about soliciting and accepting donations to Commons. There's definitely a shared interest in preserving and promoting all kinds of media that we're not doing very well to capture and utilize. There are at least two broad categories I see that could make donations: GLAMs
That's ongoing but it has issues with diminishing returns
https://geniice.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/the-point-of-diminishing-returns-on...
and individuals who have an article that currently has no image or a bad image.
Generally works better if done by the project in question rather than commons.
Hoi, Chapters are known on Wikidata and so are all the GLAM partners. It is trivially easy to establish relations between them. It allows for many visualisations. That is how we can make the relevance of chapters more obvious. Thanks, GerardM
Yeah, I blogged about this in the past as well.
On 14 December 2014 at 13:09, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
geni, 14/12/2014 09:13:
if we can turn the chapters into respected points of contact which GLAMs
Is there any evidence to think they aren't?
Nemo
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 14 December 2014 at 12:09, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
geni, 14/12/2014 09:13:
if we can turn the chapters into respected points of contact which GLAMs
Is there any evidence to think they aren't?
Not in the way that I mean. WMUK is a contact for wikipedia (and other wikimedia projects). I've seen little evidence of it being a contact for people less sure about where they want to go.
geni, 15/12/2014 09:54:
Not in the way that I mean. WMUK is a contact for wikipedia (and other wikimedia projects). I've seen little evidence of it being a contact for people less sure about where they want to go.
Sounds like a problem specific to WMUK then, which you should discuss with them. Most chapters I know more closely don't have such a problem.
Nemo
geni wrote:
On 13 December 2014 at 02:48, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
An alternate solution would be to ban automated notices. :-)
Individualised ones don't scale
Or at least make them far less obnoxious.
Been tried. A lot. It doesn't make any difference mind but I assume people will continue trying.
Saying "if you look over here, you'll see the same or worse" is a pretty poor argument, in my opinion.
Going after commons for a project wide issue however pretty pointless.
Eh, if they're hotlinking from Commons, we presumably have HTTP referers in the server access logs. Otherwise, there are services (Google Images, TinEye, etc.) that can perform reverse image searches.
They tend to object to people trying to run too many automated searches on their services.
My reading is that your replies have a very defeatist outlook. And it feels a bit like simple laziness ("everybody does this and we can't make messages less awful because it's just too harrrrd"). There are a few clear problem here and they're regularly hurting us. So one way or another, we need to find acceptable short-term and long-term solutions. Instead of being defeatist, we need a willingness to try and try again. :-)
In browser editing is kinda dicey.
Why dicey? At a minimum, we need support for basic image editing (cropping, resizing, rotating). And there are external libraries we can likely leverage here.
This is a nasty cop-out.
Not really. Recognising our limits has its uses and if we can turn the chapters into respected points of contact which GLAMs know will point them in useful direction we at least get to know what is going on.
We already do this in a limited fashion, but we need to get better about soliciting and accepting donations to Commons. There's definitely a shared interest in preserving and promoting all kinds of media that we're not doing very well to capture and utilize. There are at least two broad categories I see that could make donations: GLAMs
That's ongoing but it has issues with diminishing returns
Thanks for the link, I'll take a look.
and individuals who have an article that currently has no image or a bad image.
Generally works better if done by the project in question rather than commons.
Why is that? Isn't the most efficient and most logical path to media donations via Commons? Is that path currently the least painful?
Another idea I'd like to see worked on would be upload capability via e-mail (or via Facebook, maybe). If we want to "recognize our limits," we could see that other technologies are more understandable and much more prevalent. We could capitalize on this by making MediaWiki (the platform) smarter and significantly more capable of accepting file uploads. (Drag and drop support to upload might also be a nice-to-have... maybe UploadWizard already has this?)
MZMcBride
On 14 December 2014 at 18:27, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
My reading is that your replies have a very defeatist outlook. And it feels a bit like simple laziness ("everybody does this and we can't make messages less awful because it's just too harrrrd"). There are a few clear problem here and they're regularly hurting us. So one way or another, we need to find acceptable short-term and long-term solutions. Instead of being defeatist, we need a willingness to try and try again. :-)
En does. As and when they crack it we can export it to commons.
Why dicey? At a minimum, we need support for basic image editing (cropping, resizing, rotating). And there are external libraries we can likely leverage here.
Its not to bad with images but once you switch to video file size becomes a problem.
Why is that? Isn't the most efficient and most logical path to media
donations via Commons? Is that path currently the least painful?
The reason you go via wikipedia is that they are the project with the missing images.
In addition to the fact that the search sucks, and other issues mentioned here earlier, there are some issues with Commons.
1) Unlike Imgur, it doesn't have a big -- and useable -- "upload" button on the homepage. I know about media freedom, yet for sharing of photos I made, Commons is not the choice. There is a big multi-page form to fill in, — both the upload wizard and the special:upload page. I see uploadwizard as the tool with bigger potential for fixing this. 2) The upload wizard has no path from it to other sister projects. At Wikipedia and other sister projects, instead of writing a short article with a picture, I often resort to writing a short article without a picture, for this reason. (Occasionally I still upload a picture, but only when I /really/ need to). 3) Users often would like to share not only pictures, but also galleries, but the upload wizard lacks galleries integration, too.
All these are UploadWizard issues: usability, integration with sister projects, gallery integration. Filed in its tracker: - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T78523 UploadWizard should allow to upload an image in less clicks - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T78524 UploadWizard lacks path from it to other sister projects - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T78525 UploadWizard lacks gallery format output
-- svetlana
On 2014-12-15 10:30, svetlana wrote:
In addition to the fact that the search sucks, and other issues mentioned here earlier, there are some issues with Commons.
- Unlike Imgur, it doesn't have a big -- and useable -- "upload"
button on the homepage. I know about media freedom, yet for sharing of photos I made, Commons is not the choice. There is a big multi-page form to fill in, — both the upload wizard and the special:upload page. I see uploadwizard as the tool with bigger potential for fixing this.
svetlana
Actually, for sharing photos - do we have an html code generator for an image or other means to share an existing photo similar to what flickr has? Would it be easy to produce if we have none? Or may be there are some trivial ways to share it I am not aware of?
Cheers Yaroslav
2014-12-15 11:40 GMT+02:00 Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru:
On 2014-12-15 10:30, svetlana wrote:
In addition to the fact that the search sucks, and other issues mentioned here earlier, there are some issues with Commons.
- Unlike Imgur, it doesn't have a big -- and useable -- "upload"
button on the homepage. I know about media freedom, yet for sharing of photos I made, Commons is not the choice. There is a big multi-page form to fill in, — both the upload wizard and the special:upload page. I see uploadwizard as the tool with bigger potential for fixing this.
svetlana
Actually, for sharing photos - do we have an html code generator for an image or other means to share an existing photo similar to what flickr has? Would it be easy to produce if we have none? Or may be there are some trivial ways to share it I am not aware of?
Yes, we do. I see it above the picture, but it's JS generated, so depending on your settings you might or might not see it.
2014-12-15 11:04 GMT+02:00 geni geniice@gmail.com:
On 14 December 2014 at 18:27, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
My reading is that your replies have a very defeatist outlook. And it feels a bit like simple laziness ("everybody does this and we can't make messages less awful because it's just too harrrrd"). There are a few clear problem here and they're regularly hurting us. So one way or another, we need to find acceptable short-term and long-term solutions. Instead of being defeatist, we need a willingness to try and try again. :-)
En does. As and when they crack it we can export it to commons.
Why should we assume that only en.wp can provide good results? If anyone on this list feels his/her project's messages are better, the right way to do would be to start from that language and translate into English.
Why dicey? At a minimum, we need support for basic image editing (cropping, resizing, rotating). And there are external libraries we can likely leverage here.
Its not to bad with images but once you switch to video file size becomes a problem.
Here is how this sounds to me: "It's hard to do for every file, so we shouldn't do it".
Online editing for images is an obvious first step, but we know there are already basic online video editing functions (youtube) so even if it takes a while, this should be a target for the engineering team.
Does anyone know if there are any bugs on the subject?
Why is that? Isn't the most efficient and most logical path to media
donations via Commons? Is that path currently the least painful?
The reason you go via wikipedia is that they are the project with the missing images.
Making Commons "a project" appears more and more as a mistake. It's too late to complain about it, but it's not too late to move away from the project Commons to the repository Commons, with each project administering the images it uses and an Arbitration committee handling the contentious deletions.
Strainu
Strainu, 15/12/2014 13:06:
Online editing for images is an obvious first step, but we know there are already basic online video editing functions (youtube) so even if it takes a while, this should be a target for the engineering team.
Does anyone know if there are any bugs on the subject?
Several. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T40271 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T56221
Nemo
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org